OCR Text |
Show CATHOLIC TEACHING. Some Causes Which. Justify Separation Separa-tion But Are Not Grounds For Divorce. By Father O'Ryan in the Denver Post.) The Catholic teaching on divorce is exceedingly simple: When valid Christian Chris-tian marriage has been consummated, j no divorce that allows remarriage to j either party during the life of the other is possible. Note 1. 1 say "valid" marriage, for there are many conditions or disabili- ! tii's' which make marriage, ab initio, lii n only voidable but void, for example, exam-ple, force or fraud that prevents free consent; consanguinity or affinity within the forbidden degrees; physical intiiniity that prevents the end of jnar- ria go; crime; adultery with promise of marriage and murder of spouse prevent marriage' with accomplice; solemn Vows, su;h as monks and nuns take; holy orders.. These are circumstances or impediments, as they are called, which -jnake marriage invalid and the parties-unfit for marriage. In so far as iho"- are of ecclesiastical law they are the wise outcome of the polity of the church of centuries as any patient examination cf them will manifest, even to the non-Catholic. Note 2. Several causes justify separation separ-ation -from bod and hoard' (divorce, a mens.a el thcro); the only cause iiv trinrie to marriage which immediately justifies perpetual separation is marital unfaithfulness: other causes in themselves them-selves arc e xtrinsic to marriage and of tluir natuio only temporary, such as v orueKy, drunkenness, etc. They justi fy separation, but only justify it durante du-rante causa, while the cause remains. Thus, though a wife may lawfully sep-l sep-l arate from a cruel or drunken husband, 5 the is bound to receive him back when : i he amends. ; Note 3. I have said above. "Chris 's tian" marriage; marriage perfected in. I in.'idelity, i. e., where both parties are 1 non-Christian, is indeed indissoluble. Put. what is cr.!l(icl the Pauline privi- I lege, mentioned in First Corinthians, I 7 chap., here comes in, viz.: If one of the wtiin Incomes a Christian and . the infidel party will not live with the 1 Christian brother or sister without of- t fense to the Creator, the Christian 1?- S comes free lo marry, "is not bound to such a one." That is, there is he e on ) Divine authority permission fur re-: I The church's, teaching works hard- chip in many individual casjjp. you say. j Well. ,what',;f it? If it is Christ's tea hirvr. we must bear it? Put. it is "unnatural; here are husband and vifc whose life together is heli i on earth. "What shall they do? i 1 L t them separate, says. the church,' 1 a lid live apart. j I P-iit .if they separate, does not naff na-ff iure h mand liberty?. ; j I weary, of hearing people talk . ' 'il.:ty who cannot even delinp it. fi For stub, let me say what true liberty' 5s: Li'.. city is freedom to live within ; law. I're- dom to despise law is license.'. If thv christian dispensation forbids' i divorce from the bond of marriages, 0 th'-u the Christian's duty is to live within that law. If Christ proclaimed .1 that law the power which His grace ; gives eal:l(.s man, to fulfill His law. jf The willful, the lustful, those impatient, s of restraint, may not understand this; the true Christian will. The seeming i individual hardship must be borne be-, j cause of His law which works to the j general good. "And unnatural if n;;tu.re ! Is free response and who - to -every cry . j of lhe becr-t in man; if nature is un- I restrained gratification of the. sensual i appetitte. then, indeml. the Christian" I law '.of marriage is unnatural.. "But. if I nature comprises trio re than the .bestial, I if it is the union of the whole man, 1 where the sensuous and sensual are I governed by 'the spiritual, aiming at the i if I high and perfect, submissive to law and r-acrificing to. virtue, then, the Christian ! law of marriage "is far from being un-! un-! natural. : i ' . i But it is not Christ's law, the good j Protestant urges, that there should be no divorce from the bond of marriage; for I rind His ordinance which makes an exception in Matthew V and XIX: "I say unto you that whos-oever shall put away his wife1, saving for the cause, j of fornication, causeth her to commit j adultery; and whosoever shall 'marry I her that is' dh-fnwd cbirrnitteth iadul-te-ry." ' I eay unto you that vhosoever shall pUt away his wife, excepi it be for fornication, and shail marry another, committeth adulters; and whoso mar-riethher mar-riethher which is put away doth commit com-mit adultery." There is no difficulty as regards the first quotation, for it neither implicitly nor explicitly speaks of remarriage as justified on account of adultery. There are so ma.nv interpretations and f many difficulties- to the eecend quoui-tion quoui-tion that I cannot now fully dwell on it. Enogh to say: First That the continued tradition of the church is that the evangelic and apostolic law forbade remarriage when divorce was had, for any cause hat-ever. hat-ever. Second That the Greek word, por-neia, por-neia, translated "fornication," definitely definite-ly meana adultery, which is altogether uncertain, if an exception is granted here. Thirrt Tko avfonino oll'co "p-v-Cpnt it be for fornication," does not qualify the second member, for the Greek text gives "apoielunenen" "her -which is put away" 'without the 'article, viz: one elismissed for any cause whatever. Fourth We should interpret obscure texts by clear ones; therefore, the obscurity ob-scurity of Matthew by Mark, Luke and Paul, and Mark x. 11-12; Luke xiv, 18; Romans xii, 2-3; 1 Cor. vii, 10-11, clearly clear-ly lay down as the Jaw of marriage, that it is dissolved only by the death of. husband, or wife. Fifth ;rf he exception would, if mdde, be a direct incentive to unfaithfulness in unwilling--mates. ' Sixth That there is really any exception excep-tion here, is doubtful, for the -Greek particle ,':'eV which is necessary . for the exception; ' is not found in mdst manuscripts.." '..'. . .. Seventh That the practice of - the early church denies the exception. "In respect of history 1 make this'prop')-aition, this'prop')-aition, that for the first, three ". hundred years afteiT: Christ you- havenotva. shred, or ia .vestige of .diyorccwiih re-ma re-ma rriage , far . ..any . ca use Avhateyer." (From Gladstone's. 'ppeeeh,'- house 'Of commons,- on: divorce bilK July -Si; 1857.) Looking over the councils - of .'the , church, I, find in the Eighth 'canon of j the council of Carthage, held in 407, the j church's position: "Married people who I have been separated may not marry again, but shall either be reconciled or live as divorced persons." The Ninth canon of, the councii of Elvira, held in 313, states: ,-The Christian woman who) kaves her adulterous Christian hus-, banel and marries another is forbidden to do so; if she should marry another she shall not. receive communion until he whom she left has dieel, unless t-e ! urgency of 'sackness should' allow it."' The council of Mileve held in 415, decreed: de-creed: "According to the evangelic and j apostolic discipline, neither a man sep- I arated ' from his wife, nor a wife di- ! vo-rced :from her husband shall marry j another; but let them so remain or be reconciled to each other. From the beginning of the fifth century to our I luiic mtnAr is ii" u..-j.u(i iu ut. universal uni-versal tradition of the Latin church, "which forbade remarriage in any case whatever. I; cannot dweil here on the Greek practice which originated in the imperial- laws. Indeed, there is no brighter page in the ? tory of my church than that -.which te'J.s us how she has carried- out "her strict marriage law, with what High purpose and unflinching unflinch-ing heroism. History tells of many cases of that purpcf-e and heroism. . It tells how Nicholas I defended the sanctity and perpetuity of marriage against the. emperor Lothair; how Urban II and Paschal II dAre.l fop thei same .cause the wrath of Philip I of France and forced him to reinstate his discarded wife, Ingclburga; how Clenicnt VJI and Paul -jII rather . would lose a whole kingdom than betray th sanctity of marriage at the , desire of Henry VIII of. England; Eng-land; how": Pius-VII :had- rather .be . a prisoner in exile,'"' his city and kingdom of Rome, the prey of foreign (armies', than truckle . lo the desires of the powerful pow-erful Napoiepti.'-- ' ..'- ;.'- " ' :-':"' : .,-:;' Marriageof ohe.tnan'-with one woman wom-an was God'a primeval institution. When the earth was young and fair in the green springtime of humanity, God gave to the crown of His creation, the first man. the man with the pure heart and unsullied soul and high consciousness conscious-ness of right wHh which the Almighty from whese hand he came had endowed him, one woman to be his wife. And. he, understanding i,he ways of God, sang tho Epithalamium of all true marriage: mar-riage: "This now is bone of my bone and flesh of my fte-h; wherefore a man shall leave father and mother vand cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh." I am glad that good men in the Episcopal Epis-copal church, like Bishci Doane, and earnest men in all churches, desire the strict Catholic law in effect among Christians. It would stem the tide of divorce which is a scandal in our country coun-try and its most serious symptom of decay. It would teach men and women to enter marriage with more prudence and forethought; for no one will lightly put on. bonds that last a lifetifne. Until the excessive polygamy legal -j ized bv the divorce court, is abolished, j It is Pharisaism to frown on Roberts of Utah because of his simultaneous polygamy. Is he who carefully provides for the comfort of three wives a leprous scoundrel,- and the man, who has ridded himself of all responsibility for one or two that he may enjoy the charms of another, a pious gentleman? For the life of me I can't see but of the two Roberts is the better man and Christian. |